Team Update 2-19 and FRC Blog - Week 0 Observations and Stop Build Day

[Mike Copioli]

Soooo.... humans throwing discs over the player station at a target 54 feet away is a greater safety hazard than a 28" tall robot launching a disk using a flywheel spinning at 5000+ rpm? Huh?

How does limiting the amount of discs thrown in the last 30 seconds make this game any safer?

It seems to me a velocity restriction similar to the the one in 2006 would have been more appropriate.

This is a game changer.

Karthik,

I disagree with your comparison to 2012 in regards to shot percentages.

This years target is much larger than last years. The projectiles retain their form better and are more stable during flight. While your initial projections may be close I think you will see a marked improvement in percentages as the season progresses.

Time will tell.

[Ty Tremblay]

Originally Posted by Mike Copioli

It seems to me a velocity restriction similar to the the one in 2006 would have been more appropriate.

Limiting velocity would be detrimental to the teams that dedicated their season to designing a full-court shooter.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is a velocity that the frisbees can be effectively launched at that is also safe for human impact. That being said, if a robot at competition repeatedly shoots frisbees out of the field in an unsafe manner, I assume the refs will issue a warning followed by a yellow card for additional aggregious infractions.

[Mike Copioli]

Originally Posted by Ty Tremblay

Limiting velocity would be detrimental to the teams that dedicated their season to designing a full-court shooter.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is a velocity that the frisbees can be effectively launched at that is also safe for human impact. That being said, if a robot at competition repeatedly shoots frisbees out of the field in an unsafe manner, I assume the refs will issue a warning followed by a yellow card for additional aggregious infractions.

My comment was in regards to the human players, not the robots.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Mike Copioli

My comment was in regards to the human players, not the robots.

How exactly were you expecting a human player velocity restriction to be enforced? It was easy on robots in 2006 because you'd ramp a shooter up to full power and that was as fast as it'd shoot. I'm uncertain how you determine the maximum velocity a human can throw a frisbee. What if she's sandbagging during the test? How would you know? How would you enforce a limit on the velocity on the field?

[KrazyCarl92]

While I am disappointed in the implications of this decision for the competitive value of our team's robot, I understand why FIRST made this decision and I can't be upset at them for making a change that they feel is necessary for the safety of volunteers, teams, and spectators.

From a strategic stand point, it's difficult to quantify the impacts. It could be up to 24 points per match less that we can score, but the average will probably be somewhere between 3-9. It is hard to tell because we don't know exactly how those thrown frisbees translate into high goals.

It's easy to say that our strategy would have changed with the new rules from day 1, but I cannot really be sure that it would have. What I mean is that the difference between the rules on day 1 and day 45 has been marginalized for us. With these juxtaposed we see that climbing is more valuable and floor pickup is less valuable than it previously was. On day 3ish we decided there was a trade off based on our resources for really 2 types of robots climbing: and shooting or floor pickup and shooting. We can't say for sure if we would have changed our decision if the rules had been as they are now. In fact, I doubt we would have.

This just means we have even more work to do for continuous improvement of our robot, and it makes scouting, strategy, and alliance selections even more important. This does not change that I am thrilled about the robot we bagged for competition last night, and despite diminishing the competitive advantage of our robot I am still excited to see what we can do to make it even better.

[Gabe Salas Jr.]

I do agree with the general consensus of the lack of foresight that the GDC did not anticipate a 'blizzard' during endgame and have incorporated the proper amount of safety features.

Perhaps the GDC had enough faith in the Human Player's ability to be accurate with their shots considering that a disc has a more stable flight path than a ball.

In every sport, there is inherent risks involved with participating. This also extends itself to the referees and anyone else spectating close to the field of action.

Take a look at baseball umpires and hockey referees. In these sports where calls have to be made close to the action, they have to wear protective gear. Even though in these sports, it is one object (baseball, puck) that is used in play there are other factors they need to observe during the game (players interacting illegally with other players, etc.).

Safety has been the cornerstone to rules implemented within sports and especially within FIRST. I understand that negotiating between safety and an exciting game can be difficult.

Based on the new update to G35 it seems they trust six robots either firing discs or climbing a pyramid because the play of action is done in field (acceptable risk). But a bit contradictory that there is more concern over Human Players, perhaps because referees cannot E-stop them (I'm jesting, but I digress). Introducing Human Players to start throwing in discs can be a bit overwhelming but the discs that do matter are ultimately those thrown in field. If the concern was for individuals supporting the event inside the net, then perhaps provide those individuals with proper head gear (helmet with a face guard). If they want to wear extra padding under their clothes that is fine, but the refs attention should be on what is in field, and not distracted by an incoming plastic disc hitting them in the face.

Any referee anticipating not getting hit by a disc needs to know that it will happen and it is an inherent risk with this year's game with or without Human Players creating a 'blizzard'
_______________

Before Week 1 of competition, I propose HQ to implement protective head gear for referees, along with adequate placement of netting around the field and the GDC to retract the most recent update to G35 but know that it would be in vain. Prove me wrong.

[notmattlythgoe]

Perhaps a better fix would have been to allow human players to throw discs around the side of the feeder stations instead of over the top. That would most likely reduce the number of discs leaving the field.

[Mike Copioli]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

How exactly were you expecting a human player velocity restriction to be enforced? It was easy on robots in 2006 because you'd ramp a shooter up to full power and that was as fast as it'd shoot. I'm uncertain how you determine the maximum velocity a human can throw a Frisbee. What if she's sandbagging during the test? How would you know? How would you enforce a limit on the velocity on the field?

It would not be the first rule that was subjective.

I still feel the the robots are the bigger hazard. This ruling, IMO, changes the game more than it improves safety.

BTW the 2006 velocity restriction was not that easy to enforce during game play.

[artdutra04]

Preface: I spent a large portion of the build season out of the country, so this is the least involved I have been in FRC in quite a few years.


One of the things that people here on Chief Delphi always ask for, is that FIRST should be more open and transparent with their decisions. And in regards to this, I would like to commend FIRST for this Team Update.

As outlined in the blog post, they did not anticipate the blizzard of discs thrown in the last thirty seconds; and as soon as they became aware of such occurring at Week 0 scrimmages, they quickly moved to improve the safety for everyone at an event and released a team update three days later. Their blog post very clearly laid out what they viewed as a problem and their course of actions to rectify it, and provided about as much transparency as is possible in a situation such as this.

While such a fast turnaround correction is to be commended, the timing of the update (hours before bag-n-tag deadline) likely contributed to the tsunami of pent-up, build-season stress and angst that was vented in this thread*.

Once everyone takes a few days to recuperate and regain lost sleep and look at this change from a big picture standpoint, I believe they will see that this does not drastically alter any portion of the game, and nor does it make any teams robots invalidated. IMHO, this game is probably the best game since 2004 to have all kinds of strategic checks-and-balances, which makes me very excited for the competition season.


* At this point in the season, I am sure that any change to the manual would cause outrage in the FRC community. They could release an update saying they were going to give every team free puppies and kittens, and many teams would vehemently complain this change was too late to budget dry kibbles into their budget.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

* At this point in the season, I am sure that any change to the manual would cause outrage in the FRC community. They could release an update saying they were going to give every team free puppies and kittens, and many teams would vehemently complain this change was too late to budget dry kibbles into their budget.

Surely you'd get more complaints about the already excessive numbers of dogs and cats in the country and the large numbers of unwanted pets languishing in animal shelters.

[Mike Copioli]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

Their blog post very clearly laid out what they viewed as a problem and their course of actions to rectify it, and provided about as much transparency as is possible in a situation such as this.

Art,

I disagree. If discs being hurled across the field at high velocity is a hazard then the entire game is hazardous. I still do not see what the ACTUAL danger is here. Was someone injured? Close call?

What problem is this fixing?

[MooreteP]

Originally Posted by Mike Copioli

Art,

I disagree. If discs being hurled across the field at high velocity is a hazard then the entire game is hazardous. I still do not see what the ACTUAL danger is here. Was someone injured? Close call?

What problem is this fixing?

Mike, the successful shots from the Human Players were with a "hammer throw". It is different from a frisbee launched by a 5000 rpm spinning wheel in that it has a much higher translational velocity.

These hammer throws were traveling TWICE the distance of the field. Spectators on the ends of the field are already at a viewing disadvantage due to the goals this year, which really block the view of the gameplay.
They would not see it the disk coming at them and could easily suffer facial contusions. (the term that a lawyer would use when suing FIRST)
I was at the Suffield Shakedown and witnessed more than a few spectators sitting at the ends of the field "bonked" by a disk.

The public has not signed (nor electronically submitted ) a Consent and Release form. While an injury and attendant lawsuit at a FIRST Robotics Competition would increase our media presence, it is an unacceptable risk.

Placing more netting at the ends of the field is not impossible, but more problematic given the less than two weeks until the season begins and the variety of venues at which the events are held.

A better solution may have been to allow the human players to throw around the feeder stations and disallowing the hammer throw. Spectators and human players would be more familiar with that style.
The GDC does not have the luxury of assessing this adjustment, so they erred on the side of safety. (As we all try to.)

Nonetheless, "what's done cannot be undone" ~Shakespeare.

Or can it? ~Mooretep

[Mike Copioli]

Originally Posted by MooreteP

Mike, the successful shots from the Human Players were with a "hammer throw". It is different from a frisbee launched by a 5000 rpm spinning wheel in that it has a much higher translational velocity.

These hammer throws were traveling TWICE the distance of the field. Spectators on the ends of the field are already at a viewing disadvantage due to the goals this year, which really block the view of the gameplay.
They would not see it the disk coming at them and could easily suffer facial contusions. (the term that a lawyer would use when suing FIRST)
I was at the Suffield Shakedown and witnessed more than a few spectators sitting at the ends of the field "bonked" by a disk.

The public has not signed (nor electronically submitted ) a Consent and Release form. While an injury and attendant lawsuit at a FIRST Robotics Competition would increase our media presence, it is an unacceptable risk.

Placing more netting at the ends of the field is not impossible, but more problematic given the less than two weeks until the season begins and the variety of venues at which the events are held.

A better solution may have been to allow the human players to throw around the feeder stations and disallowing the hammer throw. Spectators and human players would be more familiar with that style.
The GDC does not have the luxury of assessing this adjustment, so they erred on the side of safety. (As we all try to.)

Nonetheless, "what's done cannot be undone" ~Shakespeare.

Or can it? ~Mooretep

Thank you for clearing up what the actual problem is. I was not aware that teams were "hammer throwing" discs. I can see how this could become hazardous. However, it seems to me that the ruling is equivalent to using a shotgun to swat a fly.

As you stated, why not just disallow humans from hammer throwing? This would have much less impact on game play.

Is there any proof of the value of a retrieving system in the last 30 seconds? Like a video simulating the conditions and performance.

[Libby K]

Bad timing? Yes. Teams have been planning on this and it's a little (or a lot) disappointing to have things changed so late in the game.

Necessary safety solution? Very yes. I'd much rather not see the 'blizzard' if it means my Grandmother won't be risking a black eye while she's watching the elimination rounds.